To be honest, after a second perusal of Ruby Payne's A Framework for Understanding Poverty I'm not sure how I feel about it. Two years ago when I first blogged about the book I had this to say. Oh, the days when I was a fiery leftist blogger.... I still feel Payne overly generalizes a very large, exploited population whose absent voice in a book such as this speaks volumes. I still feel it is inherently absurd to think you can understand poverty, the lifestyles of many people in poverty, or other such deeply complex and malleable concepts by reading a book. I still feel that the myriad holes in Payne's argument makes it as useful as a two-dollar bill in the vending machines on the first floor of Guyton. However, I do hear more of what Payne was trying to get across after having taught for two years in one of the poorest places in the nation.
Payne rubs me the wrong way on p. 38 with her ridiculous self-assessment that she encourages readers to take to see if they could survive in poverty. Things such as knowing which churches or sides of town have the best rummage sales and living without electricity or a phone are more commonplace for our homeless population--not those in poverty. In actuality, many people in poverty try to live outside of their means through extrinsic markers of financial freedom such as name-brand clothing and sneakers or expensive and multi-faceted cell phones. What's more, Payne's list on p. 167 of the causes of poverty should have placed more emphasis on the exploitation and political/ economic structures that keep people in poverty where they are. Surely, personal choices play a part in keeping people impoverished but the personal choices one views themselves as having are largely dictated by those superstructures that may prevent an individual from seeing themselves as even having choices given the circumstances that they daily face.
I shall give credit where credit is due, however. I feel that some of the practices that Payne describes are right on the money. An example of this is the roundabout storytelling of many people in poverty. The storytelling does not go start-middle-end. It more often goes end, preceding detail, preceding detail, preceding detail, starting point. Those who have encountered this personally will know what I mean. Additionally, I think that Payne is spot on when she says that school is the only place where young people in poverty can learn to become middle class (notwithstanding television and Internet exposure though, since those are not places). Students in Mississippi generally see teachers as individuals who have "made it"--to the middle class, of course. We have salaries. We drive nice, new cars (often). We live on the good side of town. We have lots of business casual and dressy clothing. We speak properly and have college degrees. Students who seek similar lives will look to us for cues on achieving their goals. The tougher question, however, is whether or not middle class is anything to aspire to be at all.
Comments